Guns

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
Sheep.jpg
Reasonable gun-control is an oxymoron: it begs the question, which is a fallacy that assumes guilt/success as the premise. I ask, "why do you think a gun prohibition will work better than drugs, alcohol or the prohibition on murder?

The smartest Gun-Controllers in the room, can't explain a gun's basic operation, and don't know what a gun is (thinking it is a murder-machine), or if you ask them "What is an assault rifle?", most can't explain that is just cosmetic accessories on a low powered hunting rifle. They demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger (or the Beginner-Expert phenomenon), simultaneously knowing nothing, and getting mad at experts for contradicting them.

Gun-controllers (not all, but most) think things like:

So irrational hopolophobics (gun phobics) aren't informed, don't accept corrections, and use the same fear-based reasoning that causes arachnophobics to scream like a little-girl and feint at the site of spiders: it's all fear-based reasoning, as proven by:

Of course the reasonable know that laws can turn regular people into felons, but they can’t turn felons into regular people.

The question I ask is, "Do you think career politicians really don't know anything about guns or how to get laws passed -- or that they know better, and will stand on the graves of our children to get votes/money/power?" I suspect they aren't as dumb as they act, and they know better -- but they know that if they pass effective security improvements, then their best attention and campaign issue evaporates. Since they know this wouldn't be popular, they blame the other side for exactly what they're doing (commit the Big Lie™).

Gun Articles


AR-15 Bullets

Bullets.jpg

There are many people who claim the AR-15 bullets (the .223) are uniquely deadly, or that you can get shot one place and have it exit somewhere else, and other myths propagate by FakeNews outlets like The Atlantic or NYT.

Some of these rumors were created by the military to make the troops more comfortable with using a gun that was far less powerful than the AK-47's they our troops were facing, and much weaker than the hunting rifles they had used at home. But sometimes weaker is better. Wounded soldiers cost more resources than dead ones, and lighter guns/rounds are easier to carry and shoot: and that's why the military chose it. But the facts are that.223 isn't even the most powerful varmint round, and is one of the weakest of the rifle rounds. It is so weak that it can't be used to hunt deer or larger game in many states. Anyone trying to sell this AR-15 bullets are more deadly than other rifle bullets, is either a fool or a propagandist. And if they're a media organization with a single fact-checker, you know which one.

Main article: AR-15 Bullets

Do something

DoSomething2.png

After every mass shooting (especially School shootings), there's the hue and cry, "this happened again, we have to do something!" They usually don’t say what, and the few who do, usually aren't very informed on the topic. So let's tear it down and look at what we should do, and should not do, and what people are asking for. And understand why were are likely to stay divided between gun controllers and those with a clue.

Main article: Do something

What is an assault rifle?

AssaultWeapon.png
Since the 1930's an assault rifle is fully automatic (select fire) military weapon (one squeeze of the trigger fires multiple bullets). Then in 1988 gun-control activist (Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann) invented the term "Assault Weapon", to include civilian semi-automatic weapons (one squeeze of the trigger fires one bullet), because it had a few cosmetic features in common with assault rifles, and because the public might not be able to understand the difference. The media and AP immediately went along with the ruse to dupe the public.

So an assault weapon is just a low-powered (smaller cartridge) hunting rifle with some wooden parts replaced by plastic parts (to lighten it), and some cosmetic accessories thrown in; like a pistol grip, barrel shroud, flash hider, accessory rails, or collapsable/foldable stock. Most guns have removable magazines, and the biggest difference coastal progressives point to is a pistol grip or magazine size. But all these features are easily swappable after-the-fact, none of which changes the lethality at all, and people can convert most rifles back and forth in about 10 minutes. Which is why gun enthusiasts think gun controllers (and their voters) are completely uninformed about guns



2nd Amendment was about the militia

MyGadsden.jpg

There are a few late 20th century inventions in the war against civil liberties (and the 2nd), but few as virulent and wrongheaded as that the 2nd amendment was about "the militia" and the militia meant "National Guard" (something that wasn't invented until 1903). These assumptions fail at Logic, English, History, and Constitutional Law, and there were the founders words, Supreme Court rulings, and experts in language and history that all but unanimously disagree with them. Of course mere facts won't prevent the determined from demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect, but hopefully the evidence can deter a few of them from demonstrating their willful ignorance in the future.

Gun Quotes : Militia Dependent

Another common wrong-headed argument is that "you’d have to be in the militia to qualify for the 2nd’s protections".

But they’re failing at English and what many English scholars have said about that argument. The "well regulated militia" phrase is an "nominative absolute” phrase which can be ignored. It is merely explanatory (descriptive) and dependent on the rest of the sentence (not the rest of the sentence is a dependent clause on it). Since you ignore nominative/descriptive clauses, the 2nd can be read, "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I like to offer the following example to demonstrate it to those being resistant:

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

~ 1st Amendment written as the 2nd Amendment

No one would read THAT as you have to be a well-schooled electorate in order to keep and read books. The right to keep and read books must not be infringed, so we can all participate in a well schooled electorate.

"Shall not be infringed" is not the type of wording one puts in, when something is conditionally dependent on something else.


Gun Quotes : Militia Meaning

Militia.png
Words change meaning over time. The militia means what it meant at the founding, not what the word evolved to mean today.

At the time of the writing, the definition of militia was, "The whole body of civilians, that are NOT part of the regular army”. Since the Guard/Reserves are part of the regular army (or reserves), they are the unorganized militia (which was everyone else). Basically, anyone old enough to defend their home, town or country (that was not in the army already) was the militia.

But even today, the meaning hasn’t changed as much as some think. Some people mistakenly think it means reserves or National Guard (established 1903, and subject to federal control) — but since those didn’t exist at the time of authoring, there is no way it could have been the type of body envisioned by the framers. Today’s legal definition is, the "militia" consists of "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age”, with a few exclusions for medical, mental or job deferments (by their choice) (10 U.S.C. 311 and 32 U.S.C. 313).

You don’t have to take my word for it, there are multiple Constitutional rulings and the words of the authors listed below

Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians

CiviliansWithGuns.jpg

There are hundreds of examples of Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians. Those claiming that civilians don’t stop school shootings are either either ignorant, liars, or both. Period. So if you hear or read that claim, you can immediately consider the source discredited by their own dishonesty, bias or incompetence.

Molon Labe

MolonLabe.png
NPR tries to school the right on something NPR knows little about: in this case anything to do with guns (or canons), or History. Which begs the question, "Why do we have to subsidize them"? It's not that I dislike NPR, but whenever I hear them on conservative issues, they usually fuck it up, big time. Like this example on where Molon Labe comes from, and why it's wrong to use it with AR-15's instead of a canon.
Main article: Molon Labe



Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence

BCTSGV.png

Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence is another FakeNews organization that exists to invent false numbers to dupe the gullible rubes. A cursory look at their numbers, and they fall apart -- they aren't based on subjective murder rates, gun ownership rates, or anything that would lead to the conclusions they draw: it's about whether they like the gun policies -- then cooking the numbers to invent a correlation that doesn't exist.

Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

GLCTPGV.png

The GLCTPGV is part of the far-left disinformation campaign to dupe the gullible rubes. They either know nothing about the topic of guns, or are flamingly dishonest. This explains how.

Obama fact-check on Guns

Truth480.png

Why don't people trust Obama when he says he isn't trying to take anyone's guns? Because gun advocates listen to what he says at other times too. How he legislated, what he says to campaign contributors, and like his gun control speech that the media failed to fact-check, but I point out just a few of the problems with it.



Hillary Clinton: 2nd Amendment

Hillary2A.png
While Hillary tries to play the moderate to those that don't know better, if you have any understanding of her background, you'd know she'd be on the least constitutional, and certainly least pro-2nd Amendment Presidents we've ever had. For me, that's reason enough to never have voted for her. But the denials of those on the left come in two flavors: ignorance or polemics (trying to spin). If you know what you're talking about, there's no doubt of where she stands, only doubt on how successful she'd be at her agenda.

Just Ban Assault Rifles

GunBans1.jpg

Anyone that says any variant of "Just ban assault rifles", "no one should own military grade weapons", or "it's not all guns, just these killing machines" shows they are completely ignorant about assault rifles, or bans. This article breaks down why you can't ban "Assault Rifles", and why it would be moronic to try.

Microstamping

Microstamping.jpg

Microstamping is a form of gun-control. California figures if you can't outlaw something, you can still put impossible regulations on it to illegally achieve the same ends: enter micro-stamping.


The idea is as follows: put little engravings of serial numbers on the tip of the firing pin, so that every time the gun fires a round, the casing has a little serial number stamped on it for the police to trace to the source. Sounds great, but only proves Gun Controllers aren't very bright.

The problems are: (1) the technology doesn't exist (2) if it did exist, it's easy to defeat (3) most guns aren't used by their owner, don't eject casings, and were pre-law -- so this can't do anything for crime, but it's a heavy cost/annoyance to gun owners for something that can't get positive results. It's laws like this that prove to the clueful that gun legislators can't be trusted.

Main article: Microstamping

Shotspotter

Shotspotter.png
Progressives are full of good ideas on how to spend other people's money, on ways to avoid blaming criminals for their actions. This one was by spending ≈$250,000/square mile (or about $60-90K/sq mi in yearly reoccurring costs), you could detect and send cops to scenes of shootings. And liberals who watch too much CSI pressed many cities to adopt the expensive systems. How are they working?
Main article: Shotspotter

Smart guns are a dumb idea

SmartGuns.png
"Smart guns" (sometimes called safe guns) were an idea invented by gun controllers to have a wedge issue to divide the nation. But there's nothing smart about them. Anyone with a basic clue of them, would laugh openly, if they weren't so fucking dangerous. But the whole issue is evidence of why we should tests to qualify people on topics, before allowing them to vote.


Extension:DynamicPageList (DPL), version 3.1.3: Warning: No results.

I think comparisons across countries (and cultures) are retarded: they are never done to increase insights, but to mislead the gullible for an agenda.

  • Countries account differently (like the UK only counts homicide when someone has been charged), we have different cultures, policing and racial breakdowns -- which completely changes the outcomes. Would you rather be burned to death in one Australia's murder-by-fire events, or run over by a truck in France?
  • Many countries with gun control have much higher violent crime, or their trends are worse than our trends, is that really a win?
  • Once you start normalizing for race/culture, you get some shocking discoveries, like the U.S. has a lower white murder rate than many places like the U.K. If guns cause crime, then why doesn't it cause more white crime? If gun control stops crime/violence, why doesn't it stop it in African or South American countries?
    • Over 3/4ths of America's gun violence seems to be focused around immigration or turf problems with Gangs in our Democrat-controlled inner-cities, which have strict gun controls. Why are Democrats 4x more likely to commit murder with lower gun ownership that Republicans?

If you truly care about the lives being lost, you'd dig for the answer to these questions. Most Democrats just call people names (like racist) and run-away from anything that might actually help or save lives. And they get outraged at science/facts that show that gun-control hasn't worked, or that many of America's problems comes from cultural conflict (due to our higher rates of diversity and immigration).


U.S. vs Australia - Crime/Murder

USvOZ.jpg
Australia took away guns and had a decrease in gun murder/crime/suicide, with a larger increase in murder/crime/suicide overall. Decades later they are down in murders and suicides, but not by any more than the U.S, or trends that started 30 years before the gun ban. They’re up in Violent Crime, Robbery, Rape and aggravated assault by much more. Their mass murderers moved to burning down buildings (with rates about flat). So they spent $500M, still have 3M illegal guns in their country., and higher violent crime: I’m not seeing the win.

U.S. vs Canada - Crime/Murder

USvCanada.jpg
There’s this common meme spread to mislead people that the U.S. is so much worse than Canada in murders, so I wanted to show it in pictures (to help people understand). Canada rates of murder didn't change any more than the U.S. despite Canada enacting gun control and the U.S. loosening it. This shows that gun control is not an effective determining factor in murder rates.

U.S. vs U.K. - Crime/Murder

USvUK.png
When you correct for their creative-accounting, the U.S. has a lower white murder rate, and less violent crime than the UK. And the UK's murder and crime rates went up since gun control (while the U.S.'s have been trending down, despite loosening gun-control laws). Gun control didn’t work well for the UK. This breaks down the numbers, links to sources, and shows my work.

U.S. vs World - Crime/Murder

Scales.png
When the facts support your argument, you share the facts -- when they don't, some will resort to partial information (cherry picking), fallacies, or other deceptions.

The facts are, in murder rates: U.S. ranks #121 safest out of 218 countries, #4 safest out of 49 counties in our hemisphere, #19 safest out of 36 OECD countries, our drug/gang/crime problems have nothing to do with gun control, and more guns = less murder because it's dangerous to try to kill an armed person. This article contains the stats and facts, for those who care.